nope. That's not what I'm saying zoo!

LW:

You have repeatedly brought up this subject and did so recenly on another blog of mine on which I ignored your comments. I let it stand. I let you have your say and DID NOT respond. So don't even go there.

Now you come here and do so again. Again, I let your comments stand, not deleting you until you just hammer it. Again, you misrepresented me and my family. In fact it was YOU who resorted to lies, not me.

First of all you wouldn't even know about this situation at all if it wasn't for me telling the story in the first place. So I have nothing to hide. What info you do have comes directly from my blogs. The rest is made up by you as you distort the real story.

You have a fixation on this. Can't help that. I've moved on and I suggest you do the same. Take a deep breath LW...and let it go.

In the meantime.....do you have anything to add to the subject at hand? If so, I would more than welcome your thoughts and comments.

Yes, this is true. He takes the truth, corrupts it with his distortions of it and we more than often swallow it, hook, line and sinker.

The news has been reporting that there is an effort underway to collect signatures to oust the school board members who voted for it.

I also heard that the Christian Civic League of Maine is looking into requesting a criminal investigation questioning the silence of the state attorney general. Under Maine statute, sex with a nonspousal minor under 14 is considered gross sexual assault.
This could prove very interesting to see how this all plays out.

It's the same idea as what is happening in a few cases with Planned Parenthood. They have minor age girls come in and tell them about sexual assaults....and eventually, PP is being quiet about it claiming confidentiallity and privacy rights...when all the time they have been given knowledge of a crime committed.

I obviously think it's a relevant comment because the point she is making is despite the parents' best efforts, you cannot guarantee the results you want when it comes to raising children. Especially when it comes to sex.

My children are too young for this to be an issue yet (oldest is 10 and not interested in girls), but I would rather be open with them and make sure they are using protection than for me to be stubborn about it and stick my head in the sand and end up with a very ill child.

I think if a child has been raised to understand his (or her) family's values, being realistic and honest with them will not damage the years of instruction...or if it will, that instruction didn't sink in quite as well as the parent assumed it did.

I would prefer my children wait until they are emotionally mature (and otherwise responsible enough to deal with the consequences) to begin having sex, but most of all I want them to be healthy and have a good start on life. If that means giving them neutral access to products to keep them safe, then so be it.

Ah...so Gene is Satan?

I knew it...

~Zoo

I think that the best intentions of a parent can easily be undermined by the school. See, the school is going to teach our kids that having sex is okay, and that birth control is normal for kids that age. Why is it normal? Because having sex is normal. If you're not having sex, you're abnormal. You're a loser. You're pathetic. Hop on the pill so you can do it and be cool, and here's plenty of access. Don't be a prude.

If it's okay for them to hand it out, why isn't it okay to tell the parents? You kid is now taking MEDICATION and you don't KNOW ABOUT IT and it could end in their DEATH if they take something else they shouldn't be, because nobody bothered to inform the parent. You know, the person authorized and legally responsible to make medical decisions for the child. A sixteen year old who himself chose to not be treated for cancer in the traditional medical way ended up with his parents in jail for not getting him treatment. How come treatment is the parent's responsibility, but information such as what medication the child is taking can be withheld from them? How does that make any sense? In the name of privacy? Children don't have a right to privacy in school. Any teacher can go through their book bag, their locker, their pockets, anything, but they can't tell the parents about birth control.

And you know what, I know it's to keep from discouraging the possible users from seeking birth control, and I know that if they felt they could go to their parents they would, but honestly - show me a responsible 13 year old and I'll show you someone who already chose not to be having sex yet. Abeting bad behavior is what makes this country suck. You used to see grandparents adopting their grandchildren to avoid family scandals, now it's not even a scandal. "Oh, Julie got pregnant? So did half her class. Great!"

The way the culture is today, yeah, kids are probably going to want to have sex. And, due to the culture, they will cast off restraint and do so. And there will be repercussion, regardless of how careful they are. The spiral is ongoing, sex before marriage leads to baggage in a marriage leads to more broken marriages leads to more broken homes leads to more kids without parents leads to more kids having sex leads to kids without parents etc. Pretty soon a kid with two parents that are still together is going to be the exception. Well, a kid with a Mom and a Dad at least.

no satan is gene and you and me

This is a BIG problem as far as I'm concerned. They are undermining us. It's like, as I've said before, we had to undo what the school was teaching quite often. It wasn't until my kids hit middle school that I was really second guessing my decision in not homeschooling. By then I felt it was too late for me to get into that mode. So I basically sucked it up, put on my big girl panties, as we say around here, and prayed like heck. Sometimes it felt like swimming upstream with no legs.

I told my kids that I would get between them and anything that was going to take them down. I meant it and they knew it. I think for the most part that kept them out of trouble. It was too much work to get by the two of us.

The latest tonight on the local news was a poll taken asking if they approved of what the school board did. 74% did not approve and 26% did approve.

Ugh...sucks to be in the same group as him.

~Zoo

Daniel, in the midst of all the lines of flummery you spew onto the JoeUser boards, you will, occasionally, hit upon a very deep and true point.

This is NOT one of those times.

"no satan is gene and you and me"

Nope, Satan is Satan. Satan may lie to us, which may lead to us lying to each other, but that doesn't make us Satan.

his influence is in us. as is the mans upstairs


which means that we are all satan and we are all god.


think about it like this.


god can do no evil.

satan can do no good.

but we can do both.

I saw interviews of mother's on both sides of the debate. What you say here is pretty much the same as what I heard said from those mothers who were in favor of the school clinic and nurses handing birth control pills, the patch or some kind of IUD, (not sure about this) to these 11, 12 and 13 year old girls.

The question that came up the most is what are these parents and the school board thinking about the consequences down the road by putting a young girl on powerful drugs that change her system?

And furthermore, if the girls desires, the parents are left completely out of the discussion.

Can an 11, 12, or 13 year old girl truly perceive the risks of oral contraceptives? Can she understand the various risks of life threatening thromboses from these medications? Major unaddressed side effects related to 'the pill' are blood clots. This is the hush-hush issue. However, it's a prime risk factor.
To take 'the pill' as an adult is risky enough. But it is one horrific move to administer 'the pill' to girls in grades 6 through 8. Some call it criminal just because of the blood clot threat alone.

In a radio interview, the head of the school committee said that no one in the school could be held liable if something terrible happened to a girl. It would be the doctor or the nurse who examined and counseled the girl who would be accountable.

The whole thing is simply bizarre to me. I'm still not able to get over the idea that by state law, the state can have confidentiality with a girl and the parents are purposely kept completely in the dark.


If this goes through, it will only be a matter of time that it's all over the rest of the country. Maine is famous for it's pilot programs. Poor Maine kids are the guinea pigs.

what gets me is that people in the 1800s and early 1900s were getting married at 13.


my grandmother was one of those.

Ohhh, daniel...

Do you have ANY idea the door you just left open there?

LOL!

I'll leave it be...too easy!

my grandmother got married the first time when she was 13. don't know how old she was when she got married the second time. of course by the time i came along she seemed to know what she was doing.

lula: IUDs are only given to women who have already given birth and who are in a monogamous relationship.

I agree that there are health concerns for pre-teen girls regarding birth control (same is true for mature women as well). I don't see how schools would be able to provide BC without consent due to the health risks.

Pregnancy also carries risk for young girls.

well the issue of IUD's actually came up for these young girls. All they said about it was that while they could be offered the young girls typically don't choose this or diaphrams because of the training involved in usuage.



I would venture a guess that pregnancy would be less of a threat than abortions or continued sexual activity both physically and emotionally. I've seen young girls go thru with full term pregnancies easier than older women do. I think it's actually more natural and easier to have children younger than older.

There has been reports/debates/opinions for years on what BC really does to a woman's system. I've always been leery of going on the pill (never did)not wanting to mess with the natural hormones. I've never had the "issues" alot of my friends have had. We may never know why or where these "woman problems" come from. At least I know it's not from taking BC pills. Otherwise I'd always be wondering.



I guess I'd have to ask....why?

There is nothing to learn when it comes to an IUD and this is NOT something that would be issued to a grade-school girl.

An IUD is an intrauterine device that is inserted through the cervix and into the uterus. It can be hormone-based or copper (no hormones). It is left in for up to 5-10 years (depending on the type).

TW

Here's the direct quote I was referring to from the Maine Sunday Telegram along with the link...first the quote:

There are no plans to carry diaphragms or IUDs, which some women may prefer because they are hormone-free. But teenagers generally avoid using them because they involve special training to insert, Patterson said.



WWW Link

Thanks. The quote is mistaken though. Diaphragms are inserted by the user but IUDs are inserted in a doctor's office visit and are removed by the doctor.

IUD insertion is far easier for women who have previously given birth, therefore it is not typically (ever that I am aware of, although I am sure there are exceptions) used with women who have never given birth.

Women who are at risk for PID are also discouraged from using an IUD (hence the monogamous relationship requirement).

IUDs insertion also requires a rigorous pre-insertion well woman check up with labs.

The IUD doesn't require special training to use. Once inserted, they remain in the uterus and the woman checks the strings (by feeling for them in the vaginal canal) about once a month just to make sure the IUD has not slipped or begun falling out.

I'm not trying to be a snot about this and I hope I'm not coming off that way. IUDs would not be a BC option for teens. I don't see this happening. And not because of concerns with training for use.

Well maybe this doctor (who was quoted) was referring to what you wrote here? Not sure, but even the part about checking for strings may put off an embarrassed teen. I think what he was basically saying is that it's much easier for a young girl to just take a pill than to talk about and instruct them on usuage even if it's as you said "checking the strings."

Either that or maybe he was just referring to diaphrams although as you can see by the above quote I used it did seem to indicate both methods of BC. That's all I was saying. I've never used either, so I'm no expert.

"I'm sure educators all over the nation/world are waiting and watching to see how this goes over, and it's only a matter of time before this new idea spreads."

Or is rejected. Imagine how the Islamic extremist movement will use it lol, calling us all early impregnators or whatever propagandized message they can use to recruit more "Blow yourself up R-Us soldiers".

"I am very sorry and disappointed to read this last post by LW. Her insistence in going down the personal attack path as if something positive is added to the discussion never fails to astonish me. "

Instead of commenting on Whip's commentary to Whip, I'll just point this out to KFC...

KFC whips attack on your perception of your children is a reflection of her own shame, of her own past. She has issues. She also has a resistance to working through them, because it is everybody elses' problem. Attacking people online is a release for her. Disregarding the feelings of others she doesn't like or feels a need to belittle, is her MO. Also not the lack of factual basis for her comments. Enjoy.

There is no parent that wants their children to become responsible for their own child before they are able. In Maine, it appears board leaders felt the right choice for dealing with children who choose not to be guided by their parents wisdom or in absence of it, was to provide for planned contraception measures. It would make more sense for educators to do their damn job and educate children in a matter of fact way about the dangers or sex before they are ready to comprehend and execute the responsibilities of a parent.

Bottom line is people, children, young adults, adults, think and choose independently of parental and external influences based on their knowledge and perception. That is why this decision is so dangerous for children who are not prepared or able to accept the responsibilities that the consequences of these choices entail. Correct?

Yes, and I'm sorry for that. I also understand that hurt people hurt people. I think she's hurting deep down. There are times I want to throttle her and other times where I wish I could sit down and have a heart to heart with her. More the latter than the former....lol. But I'm only human afterall.



Correct. One thing not mentioned anywhere is the increased chances for cervical cancer down the road for these girls. I was told recently that more woman die of this than HIV. So what the heck are we doing even considering encouraging sex at such young ages?

One, didn't you advocate for the mandatory HPV vaccine? I seem to remember tangling with you over this. Why would you feel that it's not OK to hand out birth control in the schools, but it's perfectly OK to mandate the HPV vaccine, even against the parents' wishes?

Two, you were not only misled when you were told this, but horribly so. I have no doubt these facts came from your son, the eminent and respected researcher whom we should all immediately surrender our wills to because he knows so much more than us, but they are diametrically opposed to what is published by the CDC.

WWW Link

At this link, you will find the death rates per 100,000 women from cervical cancer. The rate is 2.4 per 100,000 women nationwide (HARDLY an epidemic, just for the record, let alone one demanding that we surrender our 12 year old girls to an untested vaccine). Now, let's move on:

WWW Link

At THIS link, you will find the death rates per 100,000 women from AIDS. The rate is 4.7 per 100,000 women, just shy of DOUBLE the rate of cervical cancer deaths. I have a hard time respecting the credibility of a scientist who feels that 2.4 is greater than 4.7. KFC.

NEITHER rate, by the way, is an epidemic, and worthy of the insane amounts of taxpayer money spent on these diseases.

HPV vaccine, helps women who choose to have sex later on in life. Birth control only helps prevent pregnancy. It does not prevent STD's or improper use of birth control itself.

Mandatory may be too strict of a compliance but mandatory HPV treatment is much more sensical than birth control access for children. Some adult women who have not had the HPV vaccine face serious consequences for sexual activity, married, financially, and emotionally able to care for children not withstanding.

Kids are kids, no encouragement or access to an enabling factor for sexual conduct should be available to them at the age of 12. The discussion about whether it is moral ends because the ethical regarding of allowing government to enable children to have sex in a regulated society such as ours is beyond the role government should play.

I see the correlation where the choice is more moral than ethical in the one instance however the demographics of the two groups are radically different.